Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the minister and officials for being here.
We support the content of the bill, but as we have discussed, we would propose the removal of the word “cultural” in the short form. In our view, cultures don't have anything to do with this because such acts go across cultures. You have a different definition of the word.
I guess my main point is that whatever our semantic debate might be, the reality out there is that the perception in a number of communities, particularly in the Muslim community, is that the use of the term “cultural” is an attack on their community. Whatever the merits of our debate on semantics, I would ask that you might reconsider this and consider removing the word “cultural” because it would not do anything to change the content of the bill but it would send a small signal to the Muslim community, or perhaps other communities, that their government is not out to get them. It seems to me you would be sacrificing nothing in terms of content, and sending a positive message.
I do have a second question, which I'd like to put now so I don't run out of time. This is with regard to provocation.
I think if we accept the government's argument that the availability of the defence in the legislation sends a signal of tolerance for the crime, then we need to examine what signals we are sending with this amendment. The problem with the amendment is that if it were to pass, a number of specific criminal offences would fall under this definition, including theft and mischief, because the criterion is a five-year term. I wonder if the government might consider other options that would include only violent acts in the definition of the crime that is relevant.
My two questions then regard, one, the use of the term, or hopefully the removal of the term “cultural” in the short title; and the possible amendment in the area of provocation.